Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

Recommended Posts

Muslim conflict now hits China as 148 die in ethnic violence.  

Thats kind of a bullshit title for the article, it implies their part of some kind of muslim conspiracy, when in fact Muslims in China get a shittier deal than Chinese catholics.  

Wasnt part of what is now China was traded to them in exchange for the Soviet Union getting siberan land and a pacific coastline? (I think thats where the Uighurs live.)

Also members of the Han ethnic group are usually given government jobs even if they have to be moved and resettled by the government, rather than give the jobs to members of the minority groups.  

I think looking for a connection to Iraq is straining a little, you'd be hard pressed to find a muslim who was pro invading the middle east any where.  Although I'm curious to know what the average villager in China actually knows about the conflict.

Opposing US policies wont dry up islamic terrorism if you oppress and harrass minority groups.  

Also the articles describe it as "seperatist violence" and "muslim violence" but theres little in the articles to suggest an actual religous dimension to this violence -  except for the knob from the telegraph grabbing at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Hopefully this part of China won't turn into Chechnya.

Especially since China won't show the restraint Russia did

Is that like, Sarcasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muslim conflict now hits China as 148 die in ethnic violence.  

Thats kind of a bullshit title for the article, it implies their part of some kind of muslim conspiracy, when in fact Muslims in China get a shittier deal than Chinese catholics.

As I understood the article, it implies no such thing. I'm quite sure Red China does not make life comfortable for the religiously observant population in its country, especially when there's a fear (whether justified or not) in Beijing of an attempt to secede from China.

I don't see any talk of conspiracy here. The point was that opposing US policy might be totally irrelevant to a potential conflict between China and its Muslim citizens in certain provinces. No more. No less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but theres little in the articles to suggest an actual religous dimension to this violence -  except for the knob from the telegraph grabbing at straws.

Is that, like, sarcasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Hopefully this part of China won't turn into Chechnya.

Especially since China won't show the restraint Russia did

Is that like, Sarcasm?

It's not like sarcasm. It is sarcasm.

Given that China doesn't give a crap how the world views its internal crackdowns. Chechnya will look like a clam bake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that China doesn't give a crap how the world views its internal crackdowns. Chechnya will look like a clam bake.

I forgot one:

Quote[/b] ]China Sentences 50 to Death in 'War on Terror'

2004.09.13

RFA Uyghur service

HONG KONG—Authorities in China's northwestern Muslim region of Xinjiang have sentenced more than 50 people to death this year in what government officials say is a war on terrorism.

“Due to the fact that the activities of international terrorist forces are rampant, we believe our fight against the crime of violent terrorists will continue for a long time to come,†Xinjiang Communist Party leader Wang Lequan told reporters visiting the region.

Conflicting claims

Prior to the war in Iraq, which it opposed, Beijing backed the U.S.-led war on terror, using its momentum to call for international support for its campaign against Uyghur separatists, whom it has branded terrorists.

China says Uyghurs seeking an independent Islamic state have killed 162 people and injured 440 others.

But human rights groups say Beijing is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to perpetrate further human rights violations against those involved in a peaceful campaign for an independent Uyghur state, which exiled groups call East Turkestan.

“Over the last three years, Uyghur nationalists who would formerly have been branded as ‘separatists’ have increasingly been labeled ‘terrorists,’†Amnesty International said in a report last month on China’s “War on Terror.â€

The government had cracked 22 groups involved in separatist and terrorist activities and meted out the 50 death sentences in the first eight months of the year, Wang said. But none of those sentenced to death had yet been executed, Wang said without explaining.

Unique customs

“Our efforts will exist as long as there are terrorist crimes,†Wang said.

Uyghurs constitute a distinct, Turkic-speaking, Muslim minority in northwestern China and Central Asia. They declared a short-lived East Turkestan Republic in Xinjiang in the late 1940s but have remained under Beijing’s control since 1949.

Anti-terror exercises in Tibet

According to a Chinese Government white paper, in 1998 Xinjiang comprised 8 million Uyghurs, 2.5 million other ethnic minorities, and 6.4 million Han Chinese-up from 300,000 Han in 1949. Most Uyghurs are poor farmers, and at least 25 percent are illiterate.

Meanwhile, People Liberation Army troops staged anti-terrorism maneuvers in the Himalayan region of Tibet, where Chinese authorities are also quick to snuff out calls for independence.

“A day after the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Tibet Autonomous Region in southwest China held anti-terrorist maneuvers Sunday morning in its capital of Lhasa,†the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The local garrison of the People’s Liberation Army, armed police, public security police, and militia took part in the joint maneuvers, which lasted about three hours and covered anti- hijacking, anti-explosion, anti-biochemical weapons and seizure of terrorists, it said.

“The anti-terrorist maneuvers, in the context of increased terrorist acts around the world, were staged to check the region’s responsive mechanism in case of terror attacks,†Xinhua said.

YAWN. No one was interested anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only really talking about the second article, the language used is questionable "Muslim conflict now hits China".

I read this as, "now their at in China as well"

It implies theres some kind of wave of muslim conflict and then mentions vauge sympathies for Iraqi insurgents from people who arent in much of a position to do anything about it and calls it an ominous sign.

I didnt really mean conspiracy in the literal term, more that the wording of the title implies that this fits in to some kind of pattern.  

"the Hui have never been involved in separatist violence. Now, however, they are becoming increasingly militant in asserting their Islamic identity" See, he says that, but where in either article is the impression givent that this is seperatist violence, given the fact that they are similiar in apperance and customs and that the Hui are spread all over China, how could they have a seperatist movement with no homeland or region they could ligetimatley claim as thiers any more than the Han?

"Ethnic Clashes Erupt in China" is neutral and the article dosent look for a link, as in mentioning that muslims in China are pissed off about Iraq, when there probably pissed off about a lot of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Such enlightened response from the "open-minded" one. Thanks.

I suppose you use the word "liberal" as a way of cursing people who are in opposition to Republican?

You're right. I shouldn't paint all liberals with one broad brush. I really am just referring to the Elitist liberals who think that people are too stupid to think for themselves. Unfortunately, those are usually the ones who get prominence (Michael Moore, etc). Of course, there are people who take that elitist attitude on all sides of the spectrum. But it just seems to be more common in the liberal side, IMO.

Quote[/b] ]You should do a course in political science because what you say is wrong.

Actually, I have. I learned a whole lot about Marxism, and now I despise it even more than ever.

Your description of liberalism sound like pure capitalism to me.

Quote[/b] ]if you hate liberalism you are bound to love: monopoly, cartells, illegal price setting etc.

Umm... "government" anyone? The government can be a monopoly too, you know. And unlike private corporations, the gov. has the right to keep it's monopoly through the use of force (laws and regulations ultimately enforced by the police/military). So if liberals hate monopolies, why do they love government ones so much?

Quote[/b] ]And the fact is MOST people can not invest their money in an intelligent matter. There are still people giving their bank info because of an email from Nigeria for god sake. How many times a week do we hear stories of people being rooked by one scam or another, and then bitching about it on the news?

Well, first off, I doubt those scams are really fallen for that often. But you're right about your main point. Just look at the debt of the average American. However, I would argue that is a failing of (a) our culture and (b) our education system. Investment should be taught in schools, since many parents don't/can't teach their kids. The only reason I have an IRA is because my mother (whom is in debt) pounded the importance of saving into my head.

Our culture is harder to change, and cannot be changed via government action. However, in general, we are too materialistic and short-sighted financially, and we are too concerned with flaunting our wealth. I think Loui Vuton (sp?) bags are a perfect example. Those things are ugly as hell, and don't function any better than any other bag, and likely are just as cheap to make; however, every girl wants one, just because they are expensive. I know because my girlfriend is this way, despite my best efforts to nueter her matierialistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]You're right. I shouldn't paint all liberals with one broad brush. I really am just referring to the Elitist liberals who think that people are too stupid to think for themselves. Unfortunately, those are usually the ones who get prominence (Michael Moore, etc). Of course, there are people who take that elitist attitude on all sides of the spectrum. But it just seems to be more common in the liberal side, IMO.

Again you fail to see my point. Liberalism not as in cursing someone in american politics but as a concept derived from philosophy. Ideas of liberalism lay the foundation from todays capitalism - only capitalism is a perverted form of it.

Quote[/b] ]Your description of liberalism sound like pure capitalism to me.

That's where you are wrong. Capitalism actually works against liberalist principles of free and unregulated trade. Liberalism is an ideology and capitalism is the consequence of failed liberalism as shown by cartells, monopoly etc.

Quote[/b] ]Umm... "government" anyone? The government can be a monopoly too, you know. And unlike private corporations, the gov. has the right to keep it's monopoly through the use of force (laws and regulations ultimately enforced by the police/military).

The opposite would be anarchy. Besides, a weberian idea of legitimate government with the rights to use force is a must - if it didn't say welcome to a Enron society at large.

Many philosophers have had different thoughts on the ideal importance of the government or state if you will. The most liberal of them suggested early on that the government should only take care of protection of nationstates and basic regulations. This "laissez faire-approach led to thougths about government taking a larger responsability to ensure a minimum degree of fairness. An effect of pure laissez faire approach was the formation of labour unions and social liberalism. In many respects one could say that modern western democracies are exactly that, meaining you as a citizen are given certian rights.

In short - no government - no modern nations!

Quote[/b] ]So if liberals hate monopolies, why do they love government ones so much?

They do? Not where I live at least!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Liberal" in the American sense does not equal the original definiton of it and as it is used in Europe.

Wikipedia has some good articles. Compare Liberalism to American liberalism.

America is a bit of an odd animal here in the context. The people that you call "conservatives" are actually for the most part ultra-liberal except for certain social aspects (religion, military, drugs etc). The closest thing in America to the classical definiton of "liberal" are the libertarians. It's a form of über-liberalism.

The "liberals" in America - as the Democratic party, are more like social-democrats (albeit much more right wing than social-democrats in Europe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Capitalism actually works against liberalist principles of free and unregulated trade.

Um.... okay, I guess I'm thinking of a different definition of capitalism than you are. rock.gif Of course, there is no nation that has a true capitalist economic system.

Quote[/b] ]The opposite would be anarchy.

In short - no government - no modern nations!

Now you're missing my point. The government can have a monopoly on whatever it wants. For example, the government COULD decide that all internet ISPs should be government run. I'll come up with some good examples and post them later.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]So if liberals hate monopolies, why do they love government ones so much?

They do? Not where I live at least!

You should come to Seattle some time, then you'll know what I'm talking about. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Liberal" in the American sense does not equal the original definiton of it and as it is used in Europe.

America is a bit of an odd animal here in the context. The people that you call "conservatives" are actually for the most part ultra-liberal except for certain social aspects (religion, military, drugs etc). The closest thing in America to the classical definiton of "liberal" are the libertarians. It's a form of über-liberalism.

Well, you learn something new everyday, I guess. But language changes over time, so expecting Americans to use the term 'liberal' in it's original context is a lost cause...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"People are too stupid to run their own lives"

Except for you enlightened liberals, of course. You guys are so smart, that you should decide things for us knuckle-draggers. God I can't stand that. I'll live my own life, thank you very much. Of course, just look at the BS that is social security, which barely keeps up with inflation, and you see how smart you people really are...

On the contrary, it's not stupidity, it's because they're smart. It's just that they can't be trusted to invest in a smart (from society's point of view) way.

If you pick a random person, chances are much higher that he'll never need social security than the other way around. So it would be pointless to put money on the side. Basically when people get money they spend them for the most part. And while it isn't a problem for the most part, it really does become a problem if you are in a situation that you actually need it.

The government can't just stand by and watch while the citizens starve to death. So the only solution is to force people to put away some money.

I agree with you though that in America, social security is problematic. It doesn't cover nearly what it should. America has by far the highest poverty rate in the western world -  12.5% people that live below the poverty line (source). This is of course because you spend too little money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC police strike again... crazy_o.gif

http://www.reuters.com/printer....6911883

Quote[/b] ]

Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School

Wed Nov 24, 2004 04:12 PM ET

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

"It's a fact of American history that our founders were religious men, and to hide this fact from young fifth-graders in the name of political correctness is outrageous and shameful," said Williams' attorney, Terry Thompson.

"Williams wants to teach his students the true history of our country," he said. "There is nothing in the Establishment Clause (of the U.S. Constitution) that prohibits a teacher from showing students the Declaration of Independence."

Vidmar could not be reached for comment on the lawsuit, which was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in San Jose and claims violations of Williams rights to free speech under the First Amendment.

Phyllis Vogel, assistant superintendent for Cupertino Unified School District, said the lawsuit had been forwarded to a staff attorney. She declined to comment further.

Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a California atheist who wanted the words "under God" struck from the Pledge of Allegiance as recited by school children. The appeals court in California had found that the phrase amounted to a violation of church and state separation.

Come on, the Declaration of Independence... mad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, recount in Washington State Governor's race is pretty much done, all but one county have checked in, and the unofficial numbers from there say that the Republican candidate for Governer has won the machine recount by a whopping...

42

votes. Democrats have already begun motions to request a manual hand recount at their expense of probably 3/4 of a million dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK NOW!

I am 17 years old and I live in California, the United States of America and am currently in college persuing my AA and BA degrees in Social Science (ROFL!). I am a amatuer electronica dj, a computer programmer, and a gamer.

I have read over a large amount of this board and I lovvvvvvve to see some controversy, but I have noticed that some of you sure dont like to even think outside of your box.

One of the most important things I have learned over the past few years is a term called "sociological mindfulness". It means, basically, to think about the reasons behind someone's actions and then try to understand why they do the things they do. Why are they racist, sexist, radically-religious, shy, etc, etc. Really is a important thing for one's being to learn, that I can say. It doesnt mean you have to DO or SAY anything to that person. You dont have to change them or yourself. You just have to understand.

Now after that last paragraph, you quick on the draw are all probably screaming "holy fuck he is a liberal". Actually, no, I aint. And I sure as hell am not conservative either. I do, yes, believe that cloning doesn't seem right as it isnt in the natural order of things. But does that make me a republican? FUCK NO! I hate those anti-abortion arguements and "religious" (more like anti-sociologically mindful) attacks on on homosexuals and lesbians. I also believe that it is fine for a person to have sex before they're 18 (/w protection as getting pregnant that young is a life-trasher). I also believe in the use of sex toys as a marital aid. Its not that I am imcompetent or anything but I believe that she deserves the best I can give. Sometimes she wants something particular and she can have it tounge_o.gif .But does that make me a democrat, once again, FUCK NO! I love art, handbuilded things, construction, farming, animals, and such. I aint a hick. I love computers, gadgets, music, and shopping. But I aint a geek.

I absolutely LOVE war. I love chaos, and I love to see people conflict and whittle away into their most innerself so that they become most connected with what is right and wrong (someone's heart). In the movies and such, the "heart" has been attacked to being confusing or picky. You are who you are because of how you were raised. But also, you carved yourself. You made the decisions that got you to the now.

War a very grosteque and extreme way to play out the course of your heart.

(Dont want to go into the Iraq war, that isnt this topic)

I believe that the only way to truly live is to fall in the middle. If you are an extreme conservative, you are probably going to think that all girls should wear dresses, and wear a protective iron shield around their pussies until they are 18, that way they cannot be "defiled" by some "unpredictable" teenage boy. And if your an extreme republican, then I would imagine you would ask your kids to have sex at the earliest age possible so that your family could sky-rocket in numbers.

Using this as an example, you have to take into consideration two very important. Money makes the world go round and if there was so many people on the earth, then we couldn't have enough jobs to go around (a "conservative" approach). And most 12 year old boys are not EMOTIONALLY or MENTALLY responsible enough to be fathers (a "liberal" approach)!

My main point is, is that we are all here together, in the United States, in England, in wherever, its always the same. We work off each other's postives and negatives. Liberals need Conservatives and vice-versa. Its good to argue, its good to debate, but INSULTS are COMPLETELY 100% SPAM.

Not trying to be a moderator but just a healthy suggestion.

Oh. And before anyone jumps on the band waggon and takes this post from a "hippy". No. I aint, at all. I eat meat. I shoot stuff with guns. But lol, yes, I do like my salad from time to time biggrin_o.gif

- Hail to OFP, conflict, love, life, simplicity, complexity, and contentedness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also true. We chose to assist the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion. The best fighters were often the religious extremists. So they did get aid and materials. Of course, that was back when the Soviet Union was an active threat and our various "allies" in Europe wanted the United States to help them keep from becoming eastern block countries. Was the U.S. "the enemy of your enemy" to Europe and thus your friend at that time? Because it seems the U.S.-European relationship has declined proportionately along with the Soviet threat to European nations. I guess without that enemy, you no longer need this friend.

That's certainly true, but there were some significant differences of opinion. For instance Reagan's decision to station nuclear missiles in Germany was not very popular.

Also, the usefulness of that alliance went in both directions. Europe served as a convenient buffer that put some distance between you and the Soviets.

I'm not denying that there many benefits of realpolitik, I don't think however that it is compatible with the desire for global peace/unity. It's primarily based around the current interests of a nation state. And as it is, it has the undesirable effect of pissing people off. In the end it's just a question of time before it comes back to haunt you.

Quote[/b] ]China tends to be somewhat isolationist. They definately aren't what anyone could reasonably call an "open society." We are not China nor do we desire to be. You say that we are moving towards a police state through the patriot act, but then bring forth China as a good example of how to run policy???

I'm not saying that China is a good example. It's certainly not internally. What I'm saying is just that it is possible to have a strong foreign policy without pissing the world off.

Quote[/b] ]The EU does hold many opinions and does, on a limited scale, get involved in many areas. Maybe we are trying to change things we see as wrong, globally, far too often.

The biggest difference I think is the style. Iran is a good example. America has declared them to be evil bastards and refuses to even talk to them. Europe, that also thinks that they're evil bastards, takes a more pragmatic approach of diplomacy and talk. While we do 'encourage' our view of the world (democracy etc) through economic incentives, we try not too overtly to pass judgement. While this diplomatic approach is often two steps forward and one step back and has the side effect of legitimizing dictatorships, it generally works - without creating any hatred.

This is where European policy is quite different from American policy. There's an excellent essay on the subject by one of the neoconservative gurus, Robert Kagan: Power and Weakness [Policy Review]. While I agree with him for the most part, one should consider that this was written during the prelude of the Iraq war, when neocon confidence was all time high.

Here's just the first paragraphs:

Quote[/b] ]

Power and Weakness

By Robert Kagan

It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power — the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power — American and European perspectives are diverging.

Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace.â€

The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus:

They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory — the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways.

It is easier to see the contrast as an American living in Europe. Europeans are more conscious of the growing differences, perhaps because they fear them more. European intellectuals are nearly unanimous in the conviction that Americans and Europeans no longer share a common “strategic culture.†The European caricature at its most extreme depicts an America dominated by a “culture of death,†its warlike temperament the natural product of a violent society where every man has a gun and the death penalty reigns. But even those who do not make this crude link agree there are profound differences in the way the United States and Europe conduct foreign policy.

The United States, they argue, resorts to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.1

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

Of course, my opinion unlike his is that America is just misguided and that you'll come to see things the same way we do  wink_o.gif

Actually, I think that right now the truth is somewhere inbetween. Unfortunately not everything can currently be solved through just negotiations and diplomacy. In some cases force is necessary and in many cases, the threat of force can help diplomacy.

Iraq could have been a brilliant US-European cooperation. Good cop/bad cop. As we saw, Saddam was suddenly very willing to cooperate - when there were 200,000 very armed and very ready Americans in his neighbourhood. Of course, the point of good cop/bad cop is to get something useful out of the suspect - the purpose is not beating him up. That's where Bush dropped the ball.

Of course force is only credible if you are willing to use it, and had the Iraq war been successful American threat of force would be a very good complement to the European diplomatic efforts. Not entirely unexpected, considering the initial risk, Iraq became a mess and the threat of American force means much less. Sure, they think you're crazy enough to try to beat anybody up, but if you were not capable even of controling Iraq, then you'd had no chance with Iran or North Korea.

And right now a weak America is hurting European diplomatic efforts. Iran is a very good example where the nuclear weapons negotiations are going ahead very slowly and not to seldom fall back to where they started. I still think there's a real possibility of a solid solution, but it is progressing far slower than it would have if America backed it up with a credible threat of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]That's certainly true, but there were some significant differences of opinion. For instance Reagan's decision to station nuclear missiles in Germany was not very popular.

I imagine it wasn't popular with Germans. However mutually assured destruction was an unfortunate, but effective strategy. However, I believe it was only fair for the nations wishing protection to share the risks.

Quote[/b] ]Also, the usefulness of that alliance went in both directions. Europe served as a convenient buffer that put some distance between you and the Soviets.

Actually the oceans provide our biggest buffers. I believe our interest was to protect our allies from our enemy, the soviets. Protecting our allies strengthened our position and kept the soviets from strengthening theirs.

Quote[/b] ]The biggest difference I think is the style. Iran is a good example. America has declared them to be evil bastards and refuses to even talk to them. Europe, that also thinks that they're evil bastards, takes a more pragmatic approach of diplomacy and talk. While we do 'encourage' our view of the world (democracy etc) through economic incentives, we try not too overtly to pass judgement. While this diplomatic approach is often two steps forward and one step back and has the side effect of legitimizing dictatorships, it generally works - without creating any hatred.

This does work, to an extent, but requires the tolerance of many things that some would consider intolerable. Now I'm not saying that the U.S. goes into every hell hole on the planet that enjoys slaughtering their populace, but military action can be a more direct, and rapid, form of diplomacy.

I read the essay by Mr. Kagan. It is alright, but I'm not sure that I can agree with his assertion that the European philosophy of wait, talk, wait, turn a blind eye to the fact that the current problem has shown no progress, talk, wait some more, and then poll the world to get their opinion is a more "sophisticated" method of diplomacy. It's more of a "peace at any price" way of doing business. Peace is great, but hardly an expected state of events whenever humans are involved.

Quote[/b] ]Actually, I think that right now the truth is somewhere inbetween. Unfortunately not everything can currently be solved through just negotiations and diplomacy. In some cases force is necessary and in many cases, the threat of force can help diplomacy.

Iraq could have been a brilliant US-European cooperation. Good cop/bad cop. As we saw, Saddam was suddenly very willing to cooperate - when there were 200,000 very armed and very ready Americans in his neighbourhood. Of course, the point of good cop/bad cop is to get something useful out of the suspect - the purpose is not beating him up. That's where Bush dropped the ball.

I agree that the best approach is probably somewhere in between. Unfortunately, there isn't alot of confidence in the abilities, or motives, of the U.N.; here in the United States. I personally don't know if I think that the U.S. should continue membership of the U.N. I definately think that we should never again send U.S. troops into harms way under the command of the U.N.

The U.N. has played good cop/bad cop, using the U.S. military as the bad cop, on many occaisions. Iraq is just one of the most recent examples. After years of non-compliance from Hussein, and snubbing the U.N. demands, the decision was made to end this once and for all.

We did make a major mistake when we went into Iraq though. We didn't send enough troops. We sent enough to defeat Saddam and topple his government, but not enough to secure the country afterward. Germany was secured after world war 2, but not by a mere 100,000+ troops. Terrorist acts were perpetrated against the allied troops (in those days they called them saboteurs). These people were executed whenever they were caught and there were more than enough troops, in country, to keep resistance movements from becoming a threat. Of course, you couldn't secure a country like that today. They had the luxury of controlling the information flow so there were no news broadcasts of the "atrocities" being committed by our allied heroes. It was brutal, draconian, and highly effective.

Maybe we could work together in the future, but I think the U.S. should relegate itself to a role in which they send a little cash instead of military forces. It would be a nice change instead of being the military arm of the U.N. whenever they need a large force. Let's have the other members step up to the plate with more than 100-1500 soldiers next time there is a major meltdown somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]"Liberal" in the American sense does not equal the original definiton of it and as it is used in Europe.

No, not liberal as used in Europe but liberal as in philosophy . Don't tell me you are getting ethnosentric Denoir, or do you belive the rest of the world never took part in philosophy?  wink_o.gif

Besides, I explained it to him in an earlier post.

I think you'r getting grumpy - I guess it's because you cannot get the coming 1905 anniversary out of your head  tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the essay by Mr. Kagan. It is alright, but I'm not sure that I can agree with his assertion that the European philosophy of wait, talk, wait, turn a blind eye to the fact that the current problem has shown no progress, talk, wait some more, and then poll the world to get their opinion is a more "sophisticated" method of diplomacy. It's more of a "peace at any price" way of doing business. Peace is great, but hardly an expected state of events whenever humans are involved.

IMHO European "peace at any price" way of doing things comes from intimate knowledge of war, and its effects.

War is something we know from a long time, on our own soil and against our people. We (civilians, and mind you, not the modern civilians) faced first hand many wars.

For example, here in France, I don't think there is a single cemetary, even in the most lost village in countryside, where there is not this commemorative stele listing the young soldiers this very village lost during WWI. In every place. Hundreds of thousands of forgotten soldiers, listed all around the country.

This kind of things forges the conviction that we don't want to see this anymore. I don't know if US has the same kind of permanent remembrance of war everywhere, but it has an impact, no doubt about it.

+ the very vivid memory that our own people can become ugly under the wrong circonstances (ie war, or threat of...).Things that must be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the essay by Mr. Kagan. It is alright, but I'm not sure that I can agree with his assertion that the European philosophy of wait, talk, wait, turn a blind eye to the fact that the current problem has shown no progress, talk, wait some more, and then poll the world to get their opinion is a more "sophisticated" method of diplomacy. It's more of a "peace at any price" way of doing business. Peace is great, but hardly an expected state of events whenever humans are involved.

IMHO European "peace at any price" way of doing things comes from intimate knowledge of war, and its effects.

War is something we know from a long time, on our own soil and against our people. We (civilians, and mind you, not the modern civilians) faced first hand many wars.

For example, here in France, I don't think there is a single cemetary, even in the most lost village in countryside, where there is not this commemorative stele listing the young soldiers this very village lost during WWI. In every place. Hundreds of thousands of forgotten soldiers, listed all around the country.

This kind of things forges the conviction that we don't want to see this anymore. I don't know if US has the same kind of permanent remembrance of war everywhere, but it has an impact, no doubt about it.

+ the very vivid memory that our own people can become ugly under the wrong circonstances (ie war, or threat of...).Things that must be avoided.

Vivid memory, my eye!

You've forgotten Sudetenland. You've forgotten which West European countries (HINT: you're sitting on it) signed an agreement with Czechoslovakia offering support if the country was attacked.

We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.

Adolf Hitler

Neville Chamberlain

Munich, September 30th 1938

Peace in our time - not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the essay by Mr. Kagan. It is alright, but I'm not sure that I can agree with his assertion that the European philosophy of wait, talk, wait, turn a blind eye to the fact that the current problem has shown no progress, talk, wait some more, and then poll the world to get their opinion is a more "sophisticated" method of diplomacy. It's more of a "peace at any price" way of doing business. Peace is great, but hardly an expected state of events whenever humans are involved.

IMHO European "peace at any price" way of doing things comes from intimate knowledge of war, and its effects.

War is something we know from a long time, on our own soil and against our people. We (civilians, and mind you, not the modern civilians) faced first hand many wars.

For example, here in France, I don't think there is a single cemetary, even in the most lost village in countryside, where there is not this commemorative stele listing the young soldiers this very village lost during WWI. In every place. Hundreds of thousands of forgotten soldiers, listed all around the country.

This kind of things forges the conviction that we don't want to see this anymore. I don't know if US has the same kind of permanent remembrance of war everywhere, but it has an impact, no doubt about it.

+ the very vivid memory that our own people can become ugly under the wrong circonstances (ie war, or threat of...).Things that must be avoided.

Vivid memory, my eye!

You've forgotten Sudetenland. You've forgotten which West European countries (HINT: you're sitting on it) signed an agreement with Czechoslovakia offering support if the country was attacked.

We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.

Adolf Hitler

Neville Chamberlain

Munich, September 30th 1938

Peace in our time - not.

I think the events leading upto ww2, what happend during ww2 and after ww2 was what he meant with "our own people becoming ugly" Avon. Also the europe of the late 30's and the 40's of the last century was very much different of the current europe. We have learned from our mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vivid memory, my eye!

You've forgotten Sudetenland. You've forgotten which West European countries (HINT: you're sitting on it) signed an agreement with Czechoslovakia offering support if the country was attacked.

We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe.

We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.

Adolf Hitler

Neville Chamberlain

Munich, September 30th 1938

Peace in our time - not.

Yes, it's a striking example of naivity!

However, it wouldn't have changed anything really - apart from saving the britts from bad selfesteem. The Germans would have steamrolled the britts and the French in France anyway because of superiour tactics - like they did with most of Europe!

Allthough Chaimberland screwed up big time one can easily understand the mood of the time so short after the slaughter of the Great War. Of course most people were hesitant to commit themselves to a possible war once more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, seems like Janet Jackson's breast exposure made networks a collective whiners now.

Today, I heard Adam Sandler's Thanksgiving song, and there is a line that goes, 'my brother likes to masturbate with baby oil.'

and here in LA, KIISFM is owned by Clearwater, which is a hugh media company. seems like they thought it was better to be 'safe' and block out a certain word from above line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×